tv Martin Bashir MSNBC July 11, 2013 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT
police where he was going. i didn't mean that i was pursuing him. >> i'm not following my daughter when she's on the in the street and i'm scared of what's going on happen. i'm just following her in the same direction. >> he had, and he couldn't hit my head on the concrete anymore, he started to try to suffocate me. i continued to push his hands off my mouth and nose, particularly because it was excruciating, having a broken nose and him putting his weight on me. that's the point in time when he started to telling me to shut up, shut up, shut up. >> why did he tell you to shut up? >> i don't know. >> where's all that blood on trayvon martin's hands?
so is he screaming or not? why would allegedly trayvon martin tell them to shut up if he's not screaming? >> when did he first see your gun? >> after we were on the ground, i shimmied with him on top of me. it made my jacket rise up, and he being on top of me saw it on my right side. >> so he's got to explain how this darnell gun that's conseat, which is concealed in his back side there, how all of a sudden it became exposed. >> get to the grass? >> yes, sir. >> how did you do that i want i get you could say shimmy. he was straddled on me with his full weight. >> at that point he et cetera able to just kind of shimmy. before he as incapable of fighting back, as he claims the victim is bashing his head over
and over, but at this point, he gets, i get, some strength and kind of shimmies. then what does he say? >> i feel that it's all god as plan. for me to second-guess it or judge it -- >> is there anything you might do differently in red roe spect? >> no, sir. >> i don't know that i need to comment about that. it speaks for itself. again, you just heard it. to just other parts of the same interview.
mr. osterman, his best friend, who wrote a book about this experience, about the defendant, says the victim had a slender build, and he tried to establish contact within arm's reach, et cetera. straddled means knees on the armpit and punching. i guess i might as well do what every else -- a lot of the lawyers have done, is using whatever we call this. but do you see what he is saying now? he's sass that armpits. how does he get the gun out?
armpits. how does he get the gun out? the truth does not lie. earlier he showed you, he showed the police where that gun was. how does he manage to get a perfect shot to the heart of a 17-year-old man, a teenager. he doesn't say he will grab the holster. he grabbed the gun between the rear side and the hammers. these are two individuals, mr. osterman, a trained federal
agent, and he's trained to defend in terms of firearms, so they know what they're talking about. in fact he sited the perfect gun to get. he describes in detail what part of the gun the victim touched. no dna, only the defendant's dna. i guess that got washed away too? or is it another lie that he tells? pivot at 90 degrees, et cetera. he might get up again. he then holsters the gun. all right. let's talk about ill will, in terms of one of the elements in terms of murder. i'm going through this real quickly. ten years, dreams of hunting fugitives. those are some of the documents that were submitted. learns all about self-defense.
that's exactly what you have to say. talking about here in terms of the fact that the stucco man has actually been involved in catching somebody, so he wants to get credit for it, too. he doesn't want to be left out. after all, he's the neighborhood coordinator. of course, he wants to make trayvon martin a criminal. and he couldn't find the address. recall how he's trying to mislead the police. see? there's no address on the back of these. why? if he's not doing anything wrong in following an individual, why does he have to lie about it? common sense.
how many arms did trayvon martin need for punching, moving to the sidewalk, grabbing the head, smothering a mouth and nose, grabbing for the gun, all at the same time? how many arms did he need? how much supposed and i have can be packed into 70 seconds? that's what we're talking about. assuming it began immediately after the rachel/trayvon phone call, he moves, what, 40 feet from where he claims it started in man, somebody there must be a flash. when he claims that trayvon martin, it took him 25 slams, how is he alive? how is the defendant alive? or is he exaggerating that to justify in miss mind what he had to do? the wrist lock he describes, how did he learn that technique?
perhaps it's at the mixed martial arts where he went two, three days a week, but really didn't get much training. think about the time frame here. is the evidence agreed in terms of the physical evidence and the testimony. i would submit it does, in terms of the guilt of this defendant. do you recall mr. o'brien, the hoa president, what he talked about in terms of the procedures they're supposed to follow? you recall about you don't follow people, you call the police?
without regard for human life. that includes a series of related actions pursuant to a single design or purpose. i am not going to let this effing punks or as get away. he's a criminal i am following this guy. i'm armed, i'm going to make sure he doesn't get away before the police get here. defense is going to claim, oh, he was a little -- why is he having to lie about the whole thing? as you see he wasn't doing anything wrong in following this victim.
why does she have to lie about it. why won't he admit he went to follow him? why did he come up with, i didn't know the street, i don't know the address? doesn't that kind of show his mental state? of such a nature, that the act itselves -- and in order to conviction, it's not necessary to prove the defendant had an intent. we're not saying he intended to go and kill him. he does for a moment there. they speak volumes in temperatures of his choices.
isn't that the truth? isn't that the truth? victim really didn't get to choose anything, did he? or anyone? the state -- the instruction that the court will read to you will tell you in part that the state has charged this defendant with second-degree murder. the verdict should be for the highest offense that's been proven. there's a lesser included, and hurricane katrina wasn't just a thundershower. in other words, your duty is if you find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the highest crime. then if not, you go to a lesser crime. manslaughter, he committed an intentional act, excusable or justifiable. you'll get those instructions
about no action -- the court will read the whole instruction to you. in terms of how you decide -- we talked briefly about that. to the evidence entried, the case must be decided only on the evidence, what the lawyers say is not evidence, and you are not even to consider it as such. you may not decide if it gives you bias or sympathy or anger or feel sorry for anyone. why do we have such rules? what if? that's not a lack of evidence. could always be more. that's not reasonable you will
not hear, because a lawyer or hollywood screenwriter can imagine something more that could be done. you must find the evidence lacking. you notice, we don't have a big animation of how it happened. did anybody see it out there? the defendant told the police this is what happened. there were no eyewitnesses to the actual shooting. doubt? and again, what's not reasonable? self-defense. this is what the defendant -- applied to virginia, hunt down fugitives, you'll see the letters, e-mails, et cetera. isn't that true?
yeah, no dna, fingerprints also on the gun. blood wasn't there, credible but should you believe the defendant? think about this. what you ha what a coincidence. does that make sense? think of the jacket as he claims he's going down at an angle. which way would it go? would the gun be exposed? or just the opposite.
i'm wrapping this up, believe it or not, and i thank you for your time and your patience. i ask you to come back with a verdict that speaking the truth, a verdict that is just. you heard from many people in this case, and i've summarized some of them. there's a lot more actually that you heard. we know you paid close attention throughout all these proceedings. some of people you heard from were the parents of both the victim and the defendant. unfortunately the only photographs left of trayvon martin are those m.e. photographs. i mean, they still have other photographs. you saw some of them, but they can't take any more photos.
that's true because of actions of one person, the man before you, the defendant george zimmerman. the man who is guilty of second-degree murder. thank you. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, we're going to recess for the evening. before i let you go, i want your notepads to place facedown. you are not to discuss the case among yourselves or with anybody else. you're not to read or listen to any e-mails, text messages, or social networking pages about the case. you're not to create or read any of those. you're not to get on the internet to do any independent research about the case, and you're not to read orally to any newspaper. do i have your assures erne your honor. we will be in recess until 9:00 a.m.
follow deputy jarvis into the jury room. actually, it will be 8:30. 8:30. good afternoon. we've been watching the closing arguments in the george zimmerman trial. with bernie de la rionda they will return at 8:30 in the morning where the defense will begin their closing arguments. let's get right to our panel. i'm joined by legal analyst lisa bloom, managing editor of
thegrio.com joy reed, and -- bernie began with these words -- a teenager is dead. he is dead through no fault of his own. he is dead because another man made assumptions and he acted on those assumptions. he presented the case today of george zimmerman as a profiler, and then as a liar. >> i'm sorry. i was just listening to the judge as he was continuing to talk there for just a moment. listen, his style inle courtroom in closing argument is to ask a lot of questions, to leave questions hanging in the air. we will see when the jury renders its verdict if that was an effective style. usual will i what prosecutors do is drive home 9 case, tell the jury their version of events, how it all happened, how this would be murder beyond a
reasonable doubt. the defense is usually the one that raises a lot of questions, because the defense is trying to establish reasonable doubt. so in my opinion, he did hit on a number of significant points for the prosecution, but he spent a lot of time on things that i think are relatively clear. i think it is clear to those jurors that george zimmerman followed trayvon martin. in the defense opening statement, the defense conceded that. the position has been he followed him, but that's not illegal. for the prosecutor to spend very precious closing time on that, you know, may have been a bit misspent. the key question for the jury is whether george zimmerman shot trayvon martin and killed him in self-defense. i would have preferred toss more time on that moment. i will point out this is the first time in the trial that i have heard the prosecution take note of the fact that george zimmerman indicated the gun was holstered behind him, something
we have talked about a lot on air over the last week. there was a demonstration toward the end with the dummy. i think the question is whether trayvon martin could have seen the gun, whether he was reaching for the gun and therefore george zimmerman had to fire. i would have liked to have seen more time spend on that. he did show the video of that. that it was holstered inside hi pants and there was a shirt and jacket covering, and he says he was down. if it'sb hind him, he's down and trayvon martin is on top, how could he have seen that? i would have gone through that very slowly, demonstrated with the holster, demonstrated with the gun, but lisa, he did present that gun in the holster to the jury. >> yes. but put it all together. >> could you so el that in the dark? could you see that if it was concealed in the defendant's pants behind his hip? ivities right. but let's put it all together visually for the jury. my personal style again -- i
have respect for this prosecutor, because i wouldn't be asking the questions in closing argument if i'm prosecuting and i have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. i'm going to say it was not possible that when it was dark that night, as all of the witnesses have told you and raining action and the gun was behind him, it would not have been possible for him to have seen the gun, to have reached for the gun. if you believe it was not possible, then this is not a self-defense case, this is a murder or manslaughter case. that's the kind of style we usually see from prosecutors in criminal trials. we didn't sigh it here, this is the different kind of style. this is a successful prosecutor in florida, and maybe he'll be successful in this case as well. the prosecutor was also talking about the impossibility of george zimmerman both reaching for the gun, fighting off trayvon martin. because to achieve all of the
things that is claimed in his repeated retelling of what happened, that would be impossible if he had two hands. >> yeah, i'm frankly less impressed by that argument. we have heard from many witnesses this was a dynamic event, there was a lot of moving around. these thing didn't have to happen -- we haven't heard a prosecution theory of the case. rebuttal opportunity, it's a question of about whether it would be appropriate to present it in rebuttal. if i'm on a jury, i want the prosecution to tell me how this happened. how did george zimmerman get those injuries if he was not punched in the face by trayvon martin? how did he get those injuries on the head. don't ask me questions and make me try to figure it out. you're the prosecutor, you tell me how you think it happened. we didn't hear that. >> but we also, did we not, have the prosecution saying once again, where is trayvon martin's dna on the weapon? if he reached on for the weapon,
if he got his hands on the weapon, where is his telephone in. a? i want the problem with that is the jury has heard from reputable scientific experts that just touching something doesn't necessarily leave dna. it doesn't necessarily even left a fingerprint. most of the time when george zimmerman told the story, the story was that trayvon martin simply reached for the gun. they have heard that from dr. di maio. a lack of evidence is generally not evidence. >> craig melvin has been following the story for us in sanford. i wonder if you could take us into the courtroom and describe the jury's reaction to what they have heard for over two hours from the prosecution. >> reporter: martin, we've been told the jury was quite engaged, as you might imagine. there was not as much note taking going on during the closing as we saw through jot
the trial when certain witnesses were called, based on the eyes and ears inside the courtroom, the jurors for the most part really hanging on most of what mr. de la rionda was saying. he was stoic, by and large, for the most part, but toward the end, especially as the state's attorney became more animated there were several points when he started to look down, at times even shaking his head. we should note that the courtroom itself was perhaps the most parked it's been during any point of the trial. george skipper man's parents, trayvon martin's parents were both inside the courtroom. benjamin crump who had nobody been allowed, was in there as well. george zimmerman's wife also in the courtroom. the courtroom itself was packed.
in fact we're told they had to create some additional space. >> craig melvin, thank you so much. joy reid, the prosecutor said the one word you should take out of here is the word "assumptions. i'm not disputing what lisa bloom has just said about the evidence, but as far as the prosecution are concerned, they are working hard to explain that george zimmerman, in their view, assumed that trayvon martin was a criminal, and was about to perpetrate a crime. >> yeah, absolutely. the first pardon of if the argument was devoted to that, and because he said he wanted to are a police officer, because he said on the 911 call, the e if. f'ing punks. the a-holes always get away. essentially noble did he want to be a police officers, but essentially thought he would do better. he knew the police were coming,
so he tried bit by bit to build this case, he saw this young man minding his own business, going to the store, had just picked up a drink for his younger, future half-brother. >> he paid for these himself. >> he made a point of noting what time it was. listen, this wasn't midnight, it was 7:30 in the evening, trayvon martin going home to watch a basketball game. he really for the first time painted him as a teenager, kept saying teenager, kept trying to get those women on the jury to see a teenager just minding his own big, and someone decided they were going to play cop and get him. in bernie's words, he's a wand abe cop, he has a gun and he's going to handle it. that's what he said was going through, in his view george zimmerman's mind. >> i've always been confused why there's two pieces of videotape that the prosecution has used, essentially two sort of faux
prosecutors interrogating zimmerman. one is sean hannity. they used him essentially to question george zimmerman and point out things he said that seems absurd. sort of use that to paint him as generally a liar, but the piece of video i thought he used a bit, was the interview with chris is a runno and doris singleton. in that interview it was asked the most obvious question, number one you were scared of a person. you had a gun, did you reach for your gun? do you go around a dark corner knowing you're armed with your gun in your holster? i've never understood wood the prosecution didn't try to explore that more, where was the gun? how did the fight take place? did he see it at all? i was surprised they never explored that or created a theory. hold it there for the moment. we're going to take a belief
break, but we'll be back with much more on today's closing arguments in the trial of george zimmerman, stay with us. all this produce from walmart and secretly served it up in the heart of peach country. it's a fresh-over. we want you to eat some peaches and tell us what you think. they're really juicy. it must have just come from the farm. this right here is ideal for me. walmart works directly with growers to get you the best quality produce they've ever had. what would you do if i told you all this produce is from walmart? wow! is it really? (laughter) find fresh peaches and all your quality produce. backed by our 100% money back guarantee. walmart. what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious! just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some...
but the instant frizz? not so much. so i'm taking pantene's 72-hour dare. [ female announcer ] beat humidity for a smooth 72 hours. get pantene smooth with moroccan argan oil in a pro-v system. help lock out humidity. keep frizz from forming. go 72-hour smooth. [ eva ] ditch the frizz... i dare you. [ female announcer ] get smooth from pantene, the world's no. 1 haircare brand. hair so healthy it shines. the world's no. 1 haircare brand. (announcer) scottrade knows our and invest their own way. with scottrade's smart text, i can quickly understand my charts, and spend more time trading. their quick trade bar lets my account follow me online so i can react in real-time. plus, my local scottrade office is there to help. because they know i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade.
voted "best investment services company." a teenager is dead. he is thread through no fault of his own. he is dead because another man made assumptions. that man assumed certain things. he is dead not just because the man made those assumptions, but because he acted upon those assumptions, and unfortunately, unfortunately because his assumptions were wrong trayvon benjamin martin no longer walks on this earth.
we're joined by joy reed, karen desoto and michael eric dyson. fundamentally profiles this young man, and then alleges he's an outright liar. what was your performance? >> his performance was great given the facts of this case. now you have the law, now questions and assumptions, and secondhand differences is not
going to get them to the end goal of a second-degree murder. s because nobody knows what happened, nobody knows who started the fight. one is dead and the other one is not talking. so that's the problem here the defense will give up and say these questions. they just conceded that. they could be firmly convinced thatself dense was not being used here, and that's the unfortunate problem here, and it's going to go back to the state of florida. the prosecution were working from much of what george zimmerman had said instead, reference to the a-holes who
always get away with it, and the -- this proving the motive, that animus toward an individual he did not know that he believes was a criminal. an observer like mr. zimmerman to profile him. as a motivating element within, as a reasonable as a reasonable response. second le you have to use code words, so we leave it to the audience to fill in the blanks.
then the prosecutor has to use open-ended questions. the fact he's leaving they questions open, but b, because we have been circumscribed in the production of certainly elements and facts, according to a racial narrative, because that's been riled out's being able to be introduced into the courtroom. so now we are floundering. you can't say what you this i is obvious. the differences are left open-ended, because depending on what that jury thinks, they will either side with the defense or the prosecution, so we're in a very dark and i think ambiguous arena here, and the inability to say with specificity what we think may have been happened is one of the real constraints here, and i think it's showing up in the way in which the prosecution is presenting its case. >> joy, one of the things that the prosecution send a great
deal of time doing was redefining the character of rachel jeantel. bernie d bernie de la rionda, sell -- he did like about not attending the funeral, but why? she didn't want to see the body and didn't come forward, because she lied about her age. she didn't want to face the parents of trayvon martin. did he do enough to persuade the jury this is a young woman whose evidence they could trust? >> i think one of the things he has going for him is this is a jury of six women, i believe four or three of whom had environment about her age or older, so they may look upon her a bit more sympathetically and as mothers say he does get up there and stick to her story. i think rachel was consistent. she establishes, number one that
trayvon martin could have been afraid of the person following him, that he acknowledged that the person was following him and pursuing him, and at least there was some element of discussion between the two of them about him being afraid, and that there was a confrontation in her words initiated by george zimmerman. i think it was important to humanize her. remember, the jurors have not heard all of the social media, all of the piling on rachel jeantel. they saw her in a vacuum. so i think it was important. luckily, i guess, for the prosecution they didn't have that additional burden placed on their view. they just knew it was difficult to hear or understand her, so i think it was very important to rebel her. karen desoto, do you agree that the prosecutor did a good job of getting the juries to focus not on her inability to read cursive, or her lack of sophistication, 'he described it, but on hurl truth telling. she used experience epithets and
expletives that he needn't used, and he made that point. if she was lying, why did she include that? >> i think trial attorneys, at least, when they're trying to humanize an person or spending a lot of time on their intelligence or you should listen to them because, you know, don't look at the cover, look at the information, is because they don't -- obviously it was negative to them. there was some inconsistencies whether or not she was telling the truth. on the second day of testimony her temperature seemed more formal, yes or no, and it appeared that maybe she would be currying favors. there's going to be instructions. you're going to have to weigh the evidence. whether or not she would curry favor toward the presence because this was her friend, is something the jury has to weigh. i wouldn't have spent time talking about that. she is what she is, and i don't think anybody should make excuses for that. obviously the jury -- jurors aren't stupid, martin action and i don't think that attorneys should spent time explaining that to them. i think they're bright enough to
figure that out on their own. okay. thank you so much, karen. we're going to take a very quick break. we'll have much more straight ahead, stay with us. [ male announcer ] this is kevin. to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap. all your important legal matters in just minutes. protect your family...
we are continuing our coverage of the trial of george zimmerman. closing arguments for the prosecution have just ended. i'm joined by joy reid, and professor dyson. we were discussing before the break the role of jeantel. she was as it were giving some context to this woman's story. does she not remain critical to this? he shear him say get off me. >> not only for those technical reasons and other compelling
legal reasons, but also for the cultural and racial ones here, martin. i think attorney desoto's interpretation was being optimistic. there was an ethunderstormous enslaw of prejudice and bias, including from wchb african-american culture about this young lady. i think her rib station was critical, although sad, isn't it? he basically had to apologize for her existence to justify the trust she boar. this woman speaking three languages. so you try this in a jury of such magnitude in a language that is not your native tongue, so that the bias against her was enormous, the physical violence, the revulsion to her aesthetically, the way she thumbed her nose at the
ostensible legitimacy of so-called legal or white authority, and the way she deployed her vernacular. what she understood is the world is going to skunk me. one of the reasons she didn't want to bring herself to the courtroom and the glare of the worldwide camera is because she knew she would you say pulverized she knew it already. i think it was critical. >> joy, briefly, if you can. he said she's not a sophisticated person, but she's a human being and she's telling the truth. >> i think it's very important particularly also because of the cultural gulf that could exist between the jurors and rachel jeantel. you don't want jurors, who because she's not like them, they're not the same race, they've never met anyone like
her. you don't want people to dismiss the core of her testimony, the content because of the delivery or because of a cultural misreading of her. if those jurors say, wait a minute, i don't trust her because of her demeanor, something about her doesn't seem right, they may dismiss the testimony, which is very important to the prosecution. >> thank you both so much. coming up, what can we expect from the defense tomorrow? we will discuss, next. [ karen ] did you lock the front door?
[ john ] nope. [ tires squeal ] twelve bucks a night! no. they have waterbeds. ew. no! are we near a gas station? [ phone beeps] [ phone ] no. is that from the mini bar? [ both ] no. is that a cop? no. [ cop ] do you know how fast you were going? no. eighty-seven [ groans ] he's right. is that oscar mayer? [ karen] yes! [ male announcer ] in a world filled with "no", it's nice to finally say "yes". oscar mayer selects deli meat, no artificial preservatives and gluten free. it's yes food. it's oscar mayer. (announcer) bring the adventure to their bowl with a whole world of exciting flavors. friskies. feed the senses.
since aflac is helping with his expenses while he can't work, he can focus on his recovery. he doesn't have to worry so much about his mortgage, groceries, or even gas bills. kick! kick... feel it! feel it! feel it! nice work! ♪ you got it! you got it! yes! aflac's gonna help take care of his expenses. and us...we're gonna get him back in fighting shape. ♪ [ male announcer ] see what's happening behind the scenes at aflac.com.
[ male announcer ] see what's happening behind the scenes resoft would be great, but we really just need "kid-proof." softsprings got both, let me show you. right over here. here, feel this. wow, that's nice. wow. the soft carpets have never been this durable. you know i think we'll take it. get kid-friendly toughness and feet-friendly softness, without walking all over your budget. he didn't tell us it would do this. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, get whole-home installation for just 37 bucks. what can we expect tomorrow? we will discuss, next. stay with us. ♪ multigrain cheerios. also available in delicious peanut butter. healthy never tasted so sweet.
also available in delicious peanut butter. "stubborn love" by the lumineers did you i did. email? so what did you think of the house? did you see the school ratings? oh, you're right. hey babe, i got to go. bye daddy! have a good day at school, ok? ...but what about when my parents visit? ok. i just love this one... and it's next to a park. i love it. i love it too. here's our new house... daddy! you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. yeah... try new alka seltzer fruit chews. they work fast on heartburn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. enjoy the relief! [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. - hugs from beneful baked delights... - [ barks ]rs ]
we saw the prosecution use today recordings, vehicle i don't recordings, even a demonstration with the mannequin again. what do we expect tomorrow? >> you'll see the defense methodically go through and poke holes in a lot of what the prosecutor just presented. one of the greatest burdens right here is to make clear theself defense. as you know that's a complete defense to the manslaughter and second-degree murder. so he's just going to say, hey, there was not evidence. you can't about el firmly convinced, because there was never anyone evidence to disprove theself defense and there was no evidence to prove the deappraised mined, and he'll say that by saying a couple expletives does not mean ill will or hatred. he's going to make clear it was a fight, a tussle, semantics, and little indicators when your
adrenling is going is something they should not weigh heavily outside the favor of the defendant. do you think -- george zimmerman, himself, as evidenced today before the court gave different versions, and so did mark omara. >> they resolved that by saying, listen, there was -- there was adrenaline. i can tell you in my experience as an attorney. if you ask five different versions of what happened, you'll get five different versions, so it's not uncommon that somebody is, you know, their description has changed time and time again. that's why attorneys spend time telling their clients do not talk.
they will have to address offers different versions of what happened. >> that's something that defense attorney and prosecutors have to deal with -- if you have a taped statement, a written statement, a deposition, a lot of the times those are three different inconsistent statements, so what do you have to do? you have to try to explain why it is that they were speaking generally, that they weren't being specific, that at one time, yes, it may have been in his bat. but you know, again he was stressed, he wasn't really sure where anything was. that's how you'll describe that away. >> karen de, thank you for joining us this afternoon. we'll be right back. [ female announcer ] it's simple physics...
a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions,
or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion. the coffee you drink adds up over the years... causing deep, set-in stains. crest 3d white whitestrips go beyond where most toothpastes can reach, safely removing stains below the enamel surface to whiten as well as a $500 treatment. crest 3d white whitestrips.
i ask you to come back with a verdict that speaks the truth, a verdict that is just. with that, he concluded the prosecution's closing argument. thanks so much for watching this afternoon. we of course will continue to cover the trial of george zimmerman as the defense offer its closing argument in the morning. "hardball" is next. . let the closing arguments begin. let's play "hardball." good evening i'm michael smerconish in for chris matthews. capping off a dramatic day in court, the state delivering an emotionally charged final appeal to the jury. it tied together virtually all of the lnlts and arguments that we have seen them present in this case including zimmerman's